Share this

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist decided to forgo a second term to run for the Senate in what looked like an easy race. But former state House Speaker Marco Rubio is challenging Crist from the right in the Republican primary and is now a strong favorite. Crist has said he will not abandon the GOP to run as an independent, but now appears to be leaving the door at least a bit ajar.

Crist has good reason to give the independent route a hard look. A new Quinnipiac University of 1,250 votes, conducted Thursday through Tuesday, shows Rubio with a big lead over Crist in the Republican primary, 56 percent to 33 percent. But in a general election match-up with Crist running as an independent, they are locked in a tight race ahead of Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek. Crist picked up 32 percent, compared with 30 percent for Rubio and 24 percent for Meek.

Should Crist ditch the Republicans since he still has a fighting chance of winning in the general election? Would this validate his critics who contend he is more interested in political advancement that advocating party principles?

"I'm awfully proud to say I was with Marco when he was 50 points down, not 50 points up. His story is truly amazing considering he was once a political unknown. But the people of Florida now see the same thing about Marco that I did – that his positions on the issues, conservative principles and personality, make him an extraordinary candidate with unlimited potential. Florida would truly be blessed to have Marco Rubio serving as U.S. senator.”

“Well, for political expediency, that might be the only way to accomplish what he’s trying to accomplish.”

“It’s much easier to consolidate the independent vote if you’re not already a member of the one or two parties. You have to run against the two parties to get traction to get self-identified independent voters. It’s going to be difficult for Crist to do that.”

“It’s very difficult to go back and court independents after you’ve told them three or four or five different times that you’re not going to run as an independent. For self-identified voters, these are the kind of political things that drive them crazy. The candidates aren’t really interested in them; they’re taking whatever route it is to get elected.”

He said he didn’t believe the results of Thursday’s Quinnipiac poll, which showed Crist edging out Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek in a hypothetical three-way November election. “There’s nobody in the country who knows how to poll [independent voters]. I haven’t looked at the poll, but most likely, they’re working off of likely voters, and independents in great numbers could be unlikely numbers.”

The word in Florida is that Gov. Charlie Crist's interest in serving in the Senate was to further his ambition to run for president. If that is true, winning as an independent would destroy any chance the once-popular governor might have for the GOP nomination. If, however, he's interested in serving a key legislative role, similar to that carved out by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and -- in the past -- by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), he might well enjoy being a senator whose election owes little to the party's true-believer base. Despite the closeness of the poll numbers, however, this may be a tough year for non-Republicans, even moderately conservative ones like Crist. If voters angry with President Barack Obama's policies want to send a message to Washington, they will probably respond more favorably to a full-blooded, right-of-center Republican like Marco Rubio than to Crist's mixed-message conservatism in an independent package.

2010 is a test to see if the tea party Americans will be Ralph Naders of the right, wounding Republicans and electing Democrats. Where better than Florida, where Nader 2000 gave America George W. Bush over Al Gore? Crist may be tempted to Go Joe and run as an independent as Lieberman did after losing the 2006 Democratic senatorial primary. But two points for Crist: one, Connecticut voters in general and Republicans in particular are more progressive than Floridians. Two, being a "maverick" doesn't give you a pass from telling voters your core beliefs and anticipated votes on major issues. If Crist doesn't attract many moderate Republicans, most independents, and some Democrats the way Lieberman did, he cannot defeat Kendrick Meek.

Should Gov. Charlie Crist leave the GOP, it would absolutely validate the notion that he cares only about his own political advancement, not any core set of conservative values and principles.

Crist should drop out of the Senate race, endorse Marco Rubio, spend some time actually governing Florida and evaluating why he’s involved in politics. If he succeeds at both, then he could run against Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) in ’12, and win.

Republicans are salivating over the prospect of winning back the House in November, and they’re planning to produce a new “Contract With America” in the hopes of sealing the deal. The catch: They don’t agree yet on what should be in it.

Some lawmakers contend Republicans should promise to pass, or at least bring up for a vote, specific pieces of legislation. That approach worked for Republicans in 1994 when they won a House majority for the first time in 40 years. Other House Republicans argue the GOP shouldn't bind itself to specific agenda items they might not be able to get through with a small majority, or because of other unforeseen political complications.

Should House Republicans make their planned "Contract" specific, or vague - a list of principles, or a list of bills they would pass? Does reaction to Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) recent “Roadmap for America’s Future” offer a cautionary tale? It detailed specific spending cuts and other deficit-reducing proposals but Democrats accused him of wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. In the ensuing flap, Ryan was forced to stand by and watch as other Republicans — including House Minority Leader John Boehner — distanced themselves from his plan.

Republicans are salivating over the prospect of winning back the House in November, and they’re planning to produce a new “Contract With America” in the hopes of sealing the deal.

The catch: They don’t agree yet on what should be in it.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor wants a document, akin to Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, that identifies specific pieces of legislation Republicans could pass if they win back the House. He thinks Republicans should “put up or shut up,” an aide close to the process said.

So does Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the House Republican Conference chairman. The party doesn’t need “sloganeering,” someone familiar with his thinking said, and he favors an approach that “tells people what [the party] want[s] and how you’re going to do it.”

But Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican who is leading the effort to craft the document, says that including specific legislation in the contract would smack of the backroom deals the GOP accuses Democrats of making, so “you won’t see it written out.”

There’s peril in both approaches.

If the Republicans include too many specifics, especially on hot-button social issues important to their base, they risk turning off moderates and independents. And that’s assuming that they can get the entire House Republican Conference to agree on specific bills in the first place; not everyone, for example, would support a proposal to “repeal and replace” the Democrats’ health care bill.

“When you are being specific and making a commitment, you got to make sure you’re responsive to what people are saying; you have to have buy-in from your conference,” said Minnesota Rep. John Kline, the top Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, who favors specificity despite his concerns. “Otherwise, if it splits the conference, that’s not something we can make a commitment to.”

But skip the details, and the Republicans risk producing a document that comes off as something less than serious.

“You can’t just make blanket statements without backing them up with something,” said lobbyist Robert Walker, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who was involved in authoring in the 1994 Contract With America, which was chock full of legislative language. “That’s how you get credibility. You’re no longer saying “no”; you have a specific agenda out there. You’ll take heat, no doubt; you’ll have the administration stand up and criticize you.”

The Republicans have recent experience with both kinds of problems.

When Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan released a specific “Roadmap for America’s Future” earlier this year, Democrats dug into the details and accused him of wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. In the ensuing flap, Ryan was forced to stand by and watch as other Republicans — including House Minority Leader John Boehner — distanced themselves from his plan.

Boehner and other Republican leaders suffered the opposite problem last year when they released a long-promised GOP alternative to President Barack Obama’s budget proposal. The slim, 19-page GOP blueprint contained few numbers and fewer specifics and left the party open to mocking from both the left and the right. “It took me several minutes to read it,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sneered. “I will note that there is one more picture of a windmill than there is of a chart of numbers. Just for your knowledge, there is exactly one picture of a windmill.”

Republicans say they are still weeks — if not months — away from a final decision on what will be in their new Contract With America, which they’re tentatively calling a Commitment to America.

An aide said Boehner supports a “substantive document” but has not decided if he thinks the party should be tied to specific legislation.

Rank-and-file Republicans, who spoke privately so as to not be seen usurping their leadership, said they fear tying themselves to specific bills, as the party did in its original contract in 1994, because it doesn’t take into account the political reality. Should the Republicans win the majority and fail to pass the legislation they’ve promised, Democrats could paint them as either ineffective or insincere.

“Political winds shift,” said one Republican member who’s wary of including too much specificity.
Underscoring that point, McCarthy showed a reporter Gingrich’s portrait off the House floor — and noted that what’s in his hand is not a list of legislation promised in the Contract With America but, rather, a checklist of what Republicans hoped to accomplish.

While Gingrich’s House Republicans were able to move on much of the Contract With America measures in 1995, most of it died in the Senate.

One Republican directly involved in the process this time around said the new Republican manifesto will be based on the “power of the idea, which will be so strong it will go beyond committee chairs and party politics” — a suggestion that the new contract won’t be overly specific.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions said he wants four things in the document: “process, competition, accountability and results.” As for whether specific bills should be included, Sessions said he’s still unsure.

But Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring said voters will want specifics from the GOP.

“Responsible leadership requires the development of serious and deliverable solutions to the real problems facing families, small businesses and workers,” Dayspring said. “When it comes to a commitment with the American people, Congressman Cantor believes that Republicans must listen, lead and deliver — and that will stand in stark contrast to the actions and agenda of [House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and other out-of-touch Democrats.”

Democrats worked through similar squabbles over what to promise in the run-up to the 2006 midterms, eventually producing “A New Direction for America,” a document that featured “Six for ’06” priorities but no specific legislative text.

For now, the Republicans say they’re focused less on the specifics of what will be in their new contract than on the process for getting there. In the next several months, they plan to set up social networks to solicit opinion from voters across the country and hold town hall meetings to hear “directly from the American people” — a process meant to convey the sort of transparency they say the Democratic Congress has lacked.

“Knowing what has gone on here, people have crafted legislation people haven’t seen — I’d never want that to happen,” McCarthy said.

“I’m not sure there’s a right or wrong answer. There are pluses and minuses to both strategies. But the most important thing to do is to figure out the best way to communicate with the American people what the Republicans would provide if they were elected the majority. That’s really the bottom-line issue.”

“Certainly accountability of government is what people are clamoring for; they want to know that when [lawmakers] make a promise or a proposal, you can actually accomplish it. Whatever your reform proposal, that you can actually do it.”

“When the three of us (John Boehner, Peter Hoekstra and myself) wrote it in 1994, we had the same argument, the same discussion, the same juxtaposition that they have today.”

“There’s a fine line in being too specific so you can’t be too flexible, and being too vague in being specific and people not thinking it’s meaningful.”

“I don’t think there’s a doubt you have to lead with spending, the deficit, debt, reform of the appropriations process, and tax reform, things people are very upset about.”

“I’m not sure it matters which way it goes. I do think it’s positive to [outline] what Republicans are going to do if they were elected the majority. I’ve been asked to help on this, and my advice has been just that. The most important thing is to gather consensus from the American people.”

(Whether Republicans will regain the majority)

“My crystal ball broke so many years ago; I’m not really sure. But I think the trend is definitely positive for Republicans. I hope that silly things such as some of the problems with the Republican National Committee and the chairman, I hope they don’t interrupt what looks like a very good year.”

One innovation for this year’s contract with America would be to choose ten issues that work not simply at the federal level, but at the federal, state and local level.

It is important that the issues be specific rather than general. General promises do not get kept. Promises to vote on specific pieces of legislation can be policed by voters.

Transparency -- the idea that all checks and contracts written by governments -- is a commitment that can be made by those running for Congress, Senate, state legislature or city council.

Waiting periods -- where all new legislation must stand unamended for five working days before congress, the state legislature or the school board could vote on it -- works at all levels of government.

Supermajorities to raise taxes or introduce new spending programs can be required in Washington, state capitols or town hall meetings.

The contract is necessary to convince voters that the Republican party is prepared to move forward as the Reagan Republican party after a brief if painful relapse.

Right now, as Mike Murphy has consistently pointed out, the Republicans know what they are against but have no idea what they want to be for. Putting out another Contract on, oops, with, America would be a major strategic error. Their only hope of winning is to make the election a referendum on the Democrats' performance. Announcing a bunch of unpopular ideas, like repealing health care law's ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, would enable Dems to turn the election into a "choice" campaign instead. And since the majority of Americans, when asked, choose Democratic ideas, such a move could turn what Republicans hope to be 1994 into an election that looks more like 1934 for the Democrats.

A contract is a document that requires you to do something. The Republicans' strong suit has been their ironclad refusal to do anything. Accordingly, the proposed Republican "Contract With America" ranks as
this year's most conspicuous oxymoron.

I fear that the new Republican "Contract" if there is one, will be as vague as the crib notes on Sarah Palin's hand at that Tea Party event -- "energy," "tax cuts," "lift American spirits," and of course "repeal health care reform." If the Republicans in Congress had specific ideas for a "Contract with America," they had eight years to enact it when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. And we know how that turned out. The Republicans have got to stop thinking about tactics and start thinking about substantive policies that can capture the imagination of swing voters who tried the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 and who have become disenchanted. These disillusioned voters won't necessarily swing back to the Republicans in 2010. That's principally because they don't like the ugly tactics of some of the Tea Party folks and the divisive Republican rhetoric about this president. Without some more motivation than they've been given thus far, these voters are likely to stay home in 2010.

Republicans must offer a compelling vision of where they want to lead the country with specific policy proposals how they would achieve their goals. In my mind, ending Washington's domestic spending spree, lifting the debt burden on future generations, and promoting job creation and economic competitiveness ought to be the major objectives of any GOP agenda.

Since 2002, discretionary spending has increased by a whopping $538 billion, with the bulk of the increase occurring since 2008. The GOP should propose returning non-security discretionary spending to fiscal 2008 levels, and then freezing it through 2020, thereby saving nearly $1 trillion over ten years.

The federal workforce will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over." Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010. A new Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows these government workers to have a 44 percent excess of total compensation versus their private-sector counterparts. Republicans should propose cutting civilian federal workforce pay by 10%, which would save $15 billion annually.

Once created, government programs seem to live forever. Republicans should call for sunsetting government programs every 10 years, thereby placing the burden of proof on those programs to demonstrate their merits and effectiveness. They should also call for canceling unspent stimulus funds and repealing TARP.

Republicans must explain how they would address the looming crisis of unfunded entitlement programs. For instance, Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio has courageously called for two changes to Social Security for those who are ten or more years away from retirement: One, gradually raise the retirement age to reflect increased life expectancies of Americans, and two, change the calculation of initial retirement benefits by indexing them to inflation rather than wage increases. These changes would substantially reduce Social Security's unfunded liabilities, and prevent massive tax hikes and/or benefit cuts that would be required if nothing is done.

If the GOP is going to campaign as the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government, then it must tell the voters exactly how they would reduce government spending. Running on vague principles won't cut it in an election year where Republican base voters, Tea Party activists, and independents are looking for specifics.

This is extremely bad news for the GOP. If there is not even unity in one of the crown jewels of their southern political base, how on earth are they going to mount an effective national campaign. File under “Lost Cause.”

According to a new CNN poll, nearly three-quarters of the American people believe their tax dollars are being wasted. For this reason, the key question this election is not, “Are you better off?” It’s, “Are you getting your money’s worth?”

Whatever document Republicans release later this year – whether it’s a general set of principles or a specific list of policies – has to get to the heart of that question. It has to acknowledge the fact that when people send their money off to Washington, they want to know they are getting something of value in return. This means the GOP will have to move beyond socialist bromides. People know Republicans hate government. What they don’t know is whether they can manage it.

The purpose of this document should be to convince voters that Republicans are ready to retake the reins of government, and will provide taxpayers with something of value if they are once again entrusted with its control.

Cameron LynchRepublican Strategist and President The Lynch Group, LLC :

Threading political and policy needles is never easy, and Republican leaders face this thorny task when constructing their 2010 agreement with American voters. On one hand, the GOP must demonstrate a competent, forward-looking vision for the United States that emphatically refutes the "Party of No" moniker. Conversely, Republicans should resist the urge to construct a plan riddled with intricate "when we win" action items. Doing so not only risks appearing presumptive, but also subjects the party to the possibility that accomplishing every item on that list (even if they are to re-take congressional majorities) could prove daunting at best.

At its core, this plan should emphasize basic conservative principals (limited government, states' rights, curtailing federal spending and preserving individual liberty). Additionally, the agreement should avoid so homogenizing the GOP that it risks alienating moderates and right-leaning independents. Color me a "big tent" Republican, but as long as a voter espouses the four basic tenants outlined above, failing to engage those individuals by emphasizing a host of social issues risks further fracturing the Republican caucus.

Forget Rep. Ryan’s experience because it is not relevant if the GOP leadership can agree on a set of specific elements of the GOP agenda. It is very important that the plan have some concrete proposals that voters can react to. That is the only way that the public can be sure that the GOP is offering an alternative and not just being obstructionist. Ultimately, the plan needs to be packaged and sold under an umbrella theme that is meaningful to voters in 2010…but it needs to be specific.

The Democrats did not "accuse" Rep. Ryan of wanting to cut Social Social and Medicare. Rep. Ryan DOES want to cut Social Security and Medicare. He made that as clear as he possible could. It's kind of like the Yankees, they want to win the World Series.

It is absurd that the media is creating ambiguity and inventing a partisan dispute about an issue where there is none. Ryan wants to cut Social Security and Medicare. Some people support that position and others oppose it. Cut the games and let people see what is at issue.

To win back the House their contract should be vague in order to create the broadest coalition. To hold their base and continue to energize their base they need to be specific. These two concepts clash and that is why they will not be able to do either successfully and will not win back the House.

I am battle-scarred Democratic veteran of the war of 1994 and in my opinion, the Contract with America with specific legislative proposals was an important part of the Republican victory that year.

In 1994, voters were hostile to President Clinton and the Democratic Congress but they also wanted a fairly good idea of what the GOP would offer as an alternative. Democrats joked about the "Contract on America" but it was important for Republicans to give Americans something to vote for before they voted against the Democrats.

Even though, the Contract with America played a key role in the GOP victory, my prediction is the Republicans will punt this year and failure to come up with anything specific.

The reason is that Republicans fear touching the third rail of American politics which is Social Security. The New York Times survey released today showed Tea Party supporters are very supportive of Social Security.

Republican budget experts like Paul Ryan know that the only way they can reduce the federal budget without new taxes is to cut social security and if they do so, they risk alienating their own base of American Americans and Tea Partiers.

The GOP will come up with a host of empty platitudes because the party doesn't have the courage of its own convictions when it comes to government spending. Just ask former Republican President, George W. Bush.

Say what you want about Ryan's roadmap, his stature and national reputation have been on the upswing since it came out. That has to signal something. He has a reputation as a man with a plan...and that's a lot more than most.

Democracy is a laboratory of ideas. Its never a bad idea to put new ideas on the table.

This is an interesting strategic dilemma for Republicans. Senate leaders have had success up to this point by being vague. Their agenda has been to block Obama on whatever he proposes. Some House Republicans such as Congressman Ryan have felt the party needed to offer detailed policy alternatives (a la Gingrich in 1994) to be politically successful. Their most important choice is to go specific or vague. When people don’t like the status quo, being oppositional but vague generally works. But this will allow Democrats to characterize Republicans as the “party of no” with no clear platform of their own.

Their best strategy is to be specific on a few things so they can avoid the vagueness charge. How about a deficit reduction plan since that is an issue of great concern to their base?

It's not like the GOP is seeking advice from pundits and political scientists, but I would warn against their writing and signing an ambiguous contract. They would be wiser if they targeted districts in which a Democrat barely or recently won. The national strategy may sound good in theory, but the reality is that what appeals to citizens in Massachusetts may not appeal to people in California.

As a single rallying cry, the concept of a contract with America as an electoral strategy makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, it just typifies what's wrong with the contemporary Republican Party - stuck in the past with no new ideas, not even electioneering ones. The contract with America was made over 15 years ago. Barely any of it became law.

Shutting down the government is its legacy, that is, its legacy as a failed bout with leadership. Republicans need to ditch their '90s gimmicks, recognize that we live in 2010, and engage 21st-century America with 21st century solutions for the new economy, race, energy, and international relations.

David, my friend, I am surprised and quite frankly disappointed by your hyper-partisan rant about the GOP-controlled Congress of the 1990s (“Shutting down the government is its legacy, that is, its legacy as a failed bout with leadership”). A more impartial view would conclude that the Gingrich-GOP (and yes, Clinton) legacy of the mid-1990s was about enacting sweeping welfare reform, balancing the federal budget, and cutting taxes for the first time in sixteen years. But then again, this probably isn’t the sort of legacy that would make liberals proud.

Republicans are still vulnerable to the "party of no" charge, at least among independents not already armed with pitchforks, so some type of "contract" is important. Democrats are even more vulnerable to charges of spending profligacy and excessive federal intrusiveness, so the winning message is easy: Republicans will return fiscal responsibility and governmental modesty to Washington. Unfortunately, Democratic opportunism will make it much harder to be any more specific.

It would be wonderful if the contract could include the large spending cuts that even the most liberal Democrat knows are necessary to rebalance future revenues and costs. These include the really big stuff that Paul Ryan dared address (entitlements), and that even Obama and his advisors have agreed will need to be on the cutting block. Yet the chairs of the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees have both declared that they would beat Republicans not by bragging about Democratic "successes" but (once again) by waving the bloody shirt on Social Security and Medicare. To paraphrase Don Corleone in The Godfather, it's not denial, it's demagoguery, and it's probably just as effective as leaving a horse's head in Michael Steele's bed. What's a good-government Republican to do?

I think they should be as specific as possible. Let them tell America they want to get rid of those socialist programs, Medicare and Social Security. And get rid of financial regulation - the banks do such a great job of running the country without any oversight, look at the prosperity they brought us in 2008. And who needs mine safety regulation? It just gets in the way. Let's cut taxes and borrow more money from China, it worked for Bush. And certainly repeal health care reform - our friends all have health insurance and who cares about anyone else. More details, please.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

How about if they just promise to do their jobs? That alone would be an improvement over the current Congress. How many of you are aware that for the second time in three months, Congress has failed to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program? The federal government runs the flood insurance program in the U.S. under the umbrella of FEMA, which requires congressional authorization in order to operate. The latest lapse occurred at the end of March, just before Congress recessed for their spring break. Since March 28, no one in the U.S. has been able to purchase flood insurance or renew their existing flood insurance policies. Senator Harry Reid promised the NFIP that reauthorization would be the first order of business when the Senate reconvened on April 12. It is now April 15 and they still have not reauthorized the program. Not a peep about this in the news, even as the media reported non-stop on the record breaking floods in the northeast. They were in a mad rush to pass the stimulus and health care, but zip off on vacation and let the flood program lapse. If they can't manage to run something as simple as the flood insurance program, how well do you think they will manage your health insurance? Think about it.

Daniel Shay (guest)
PA:

Republicans should be specific about their proposals, and let the electorate decide. If Republican ideals and policies are popular, they have nothing to fear. I welcome a GOP that is principled and oriented around the enactment of specific policies, rather than a mere machine for sloganeering and obstruction. If the Republicans want to be seen as anything other than the "party of 'no'," then they need to start doing as Eric Cantor suggests: putting up, or shutting up. I commend Rep. Ryan's efforts, and his willingness to put forth real policies. Would that more Republicans had the courage of their convictions to do the same. Regardless of whether one agrees with Ryan's positions and suggestions, the GOP needs more representatives like him. The GOP's biggest problem in recent years has been that it doesn't seem to stand for (or on) anything; its platform has rotted. Its "family values" plank has been damaged by scandal, its "small government" plank has eroded due to intrusions into personal liberties by its social wing, and its "fiscal responsibility" plank was destroyed by the prior administration's policies. It's time to tell the people how they intend to govern, and let the public decide if it appeals.

Daren Martin (guest)
TX:

The GOP should be very specific as to what their plans are for the future and the direction they want to try to take the country. I have to credit Paul Ryan and his Roadmap for America , at least he is more than willing to let you know where he stands on the issues and what he believes . . . more than you can say for the vast majority of the politicians out there. That's called transparency, something Obama spoke of but knew nothing about. As an aside, Mr. Jost, please take off your liberal glasses for a just a moment so you can see the real world. Yes, we must start to talk about real sacrifice such as cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicade. It's going to be painful but it's the reality we must face. The spending is out of control and unsustainable. I would rather cut the programs and get back to fiscal responsibility than realize in 10-20 years that we ran out of money and can't afford ANY type of spending other than debt payments. I would love to be able to help all the impoverished and less fortunate people out there in America but the reality is we simply cannot afford to do so. When roughly 50% of American's pay no federal taxes but still recevie federal benefits then something is wrong, terribly wrong.

Jon Davenport (guest)
TX:

To Prof. Jost: While I am greatly entertained by your clear bitterness, it serves no purpose. Yet again you, the learned law professor, can't bring us an objective and thoughtful opinion and instead bring us partisan bitterness. In law school I always knew how my professors leaned politically, but they were never as partisan as you. It does your party of preference no good to continually look down your nose and insinuate, as dumb, voters who don't share your view. So given that, please continue to post your bitter nonsense.

Mike G. (guest)
OH:

Timothy Jost, there you go again showing your liberal colors. In case you have noticed, Medicare and Social Security are broke. The Democrats are working on a financial regulation plan without concentrating on Fannie Mae and Fraddie Mac. Mine safety? The Democrats control everything and have controlled Congress since 2006. Where have they been? Cut taxes and borrow from China? How about raise taxes like we are now and still borrow from China. Do you really believe what you write? To the point, it does not matter what the Republicans do. The Democrats are driving us off a cliff and the Republicans would just drive us off a little slower. There is little or no difference between the two parties only white noise. Unemployment is high and will remain so for a while, taxes will go up and entitlements will be cut. There is no way around this. Wake up America!

Tim Gorman (guest)
KS:

Timothy Jost is a jerk. Why is he still allowed to post on this forum? No one wants to "get rid of" Medicare and Soc. Sec. This is just more liberal Democrat politics of personal destruction. If he can not admit, along with the rest of the liberal Dems in this country, that maintaining Soc. Sec. and Medicare as they are is unsustainable then he is doing nothing more than advocating for the bankruptcy of the United States. It really is just that simple. The exact same thing applies to financial regulation, mine safety, etc. No one is advocating for totally "getting rid" of any regulation -- only that regulation be reasonable. Example: Waxman being head of the Commerce Committee not even understanding regulations under which companies operate -- how can he possibly advocate for reasonable regulation when he doesn't even know what current regulations require? Example: Dodd whining about the Republicans making the very same argument about his financial regulation bill that the administration made in Oct. 2009. If both the Repubs and the admin think having a slush fund is bad then how can it be reasonable?

Lee Olyer (guest)
CA:

Love it or hate it, at least Ryan's plan has one critical factor sore missing in D.C. these days - REALITY. Any incumbent who tell you they can fix the projected budget problems without any "pain" needs to be voted out immediately. Ryan is trying lay out a plan in realistic terms - give the man credit! He's at least addressing the American people like adults and not like some benign dictator who pats you on the head and tells you, "I know what's best for you."

N. Wilson (guest)
TX:

Do Democrats keep whining about Sarah Palin's hand notes to overcompensate for the fact that their leader often can't seem to make a coherent sentence without a teleprompter in front of him?

Todd Bray (guest)
CA:

Didn't we just survive an eight year Republican contract on America? I don't know which is more compelling, the rights inability to govern or their collective amnesia regarding just how bad they have made this country during the Bush II years. I guess that is the issue for the right, how to move forward without the guilt, shame and unremovable stain on their party for driving this country to ground like a moose being chased by wild dogs. If the Republicans can find a majority of voters who don't remember losing their jobs, homes and everything else because of Republican short sighted self interest then so be it. I however have more faith than that in my fellow countrymen and don't think of them as cynically as the right does.

Nathaniel Leary (guest)
DC:

What is this proposition that Reagan stood for smaller government? He stood for smaller taxes - at least until he increased taxes. And government spending increased under Reagan, and the national debt increased, and the budget deficit grew under Reagan. So why is it that he gets credit as being a small government guy? Is it because he decreased social programs? It's a faulty premise that Bush stood for increased government while Reagan stood for smaller government. The two share one thing in common: They both said they stood for small government, but actually increased spending, the deficit, and the debt. As for the contract, they should include a force majeure clause just in case they aren't able to deliver on their promises, or decide that they want to fund another substantial tax cut that adds to the national debt. At the very least, as a citizen, I would want some sort of liquidated damages provision in the event that they do not deliver on their promises - providing for some sort of prompt removal from office. The contract idea is stupid because our government officials do not run the country based on contractual obligations despite that politicians act as though they do. In politics, promises are made to be broken.

Sheila Fahey (guest)
ID:

1. Tim - how can you say, with a straight face, that the Ryan did not say he wants to cut Medicare and Social Security? Clearly, you haven't read his proposal. 2. To the other "conveniently forgetting facts" contributors: By the time the 2006 Democratic majority in Congress was seated in January 2007, Bush had already completely annihilated the entire $236 billion surplus handed to him from Pres. Clinton, and turned it into a $318 billion deficit. (and also kept a separate set of accounting books for their "emergency supplementals" [it's called "cooking the books"] so that the costs of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz dirty little Iraq war wouldn't be piled atop the record of their monumental mismanagement) The federal budget deficit totalled $318 billion in fiscal year 2005, which ended Sept. 30, 2006 ... that'sTWO MONTHS before Democrats won the elections that would hand them control of both Houses of Congress. Let me recap the facts for you: January 2001 = $236 billion SURPLUS September 2006 = $318 billion DEFICIT January 2007 = Democrats took control of Congress November 2008 = Barack Obama elected and Bush handed him a $1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit and an economy on the brink of imploding upon itself.

Zach Jarmann (guest)
NJ:

As a man who has returned from overseas, and only weeks later had a close relative murdered in their home, I say with all authority that hope is a weak shield.

John Wilburn (guest)
KS:

I think that the GOP should say in plain working man English just what they want to cut and how they plan to pay for it. They should not use George W. Bush's codespeak or Sarah Palin's wrong way policy. They should also admit that they are at least partly the blame for the deposit. They should also stop following Glenn Beck.

Daniel Kerlinsky (guest)
NM:

The Republican Party contract has been with Wall Street and the world of corporate big business and wealthy families protecting inheritance and unearned income. With President Obama's success in consolidating his international leadership - and his success in stabilizing the stock market and the financial system - he has protected the wealthy families well enough that corporations will give him as much and spend as much for him - or maybe more - than against him. Republicans steal from the people on behalf of the wealthy until all the public wealth is gone; then they let the Democrats build up the treasure chest until there is enough there to steal again. Public debt is good for the wealthy families who collect unearned income from the interest on public debt. The only question is whether wealthy families will see the Democratic Party as part of President Obama's success and give some fraction of what they give the leader to the party beneath him. WIthout substantial majority nothing happens in Washington. So gridlocking Obama is no benefit to wealthy families.

J. D. Edwards (guest)
NM:

The Republicans are intent on a delivering not a "Contract 'With' America," but a "Contract ON America." But how "specific" do they need to be? Pretty darn specific. They need to define "real Americans" -- so that those of us who are "un-Americans" can be ready. They need to define which things are "socialist (communist, marxist, fascist)" so we know what to be be for (Social Security and Medicare, for the time being) and what to be against (the big government-run health care reform takeover that maintains the private insurance companies). We need to know whether all presidential candidates have to "produce a birth certificate" or just the "un-American" ones. We need to know who is allowed to take tax deductions and minimize their tax burden (the wealthier "real Americans") and who isn't (the un-Americans). We need to know which immigrants are A-OK and which ones need to (as Peggy Noonan says) "keep on walkin'." We need to know where we can get learned on that down-home, "g" droppin' "real American"-speak instead of that elitist, "presidential" whole sentences that are coherent stuff. They need to real specific on this whole "real American news" thingey. FOX and Limbaugh are "American." "Lamestream media" is not.

Gary Wagner (guest)
IN:

Why do you still allow people like Sherrilyn Ifill to post as a contributor? We don't need to hear from such hate-filled, Bush-derangement-syndrome-suffering, snarky, rude, arrogant Palin bashers acting as if their personal hatred toward Republicans has any bearing on what is being discussed here. The first item on the contract should be, "Dethrone queen Nancy." That would ensure 55% of the country's vote alone. Item 2. Repeal the healthcare monstrosity. Promise to not pass any bill and let Obama shut down government if he won't sign the repeal. Item 3. Pass a real health insurance reform bill. Item 4. Pass a balanced budget amendment. Item 5. Pass a bill to replace the current 90,000 page tax law with a 200 page modified flat tax bill. Eliminate 150,000 IRS jobs at the same time. One single tax rate. Eliminate corporate taxes (consumers pay them all anyway). A person is allowed one deduction - $5,000 per dependent. That's it. One rate. One deduction. No more hidden corporate taxes. Everyone pays their fair share. People with low incomes pay nothing. People with huge incomes pay huge amounts.

S Xavier (guest)
CT:

That the Republican Party is even asking themselves what they stand for is--while an improvement from simply being against whatever the president is for--jaw dropping. The biggest downside, of course, is that their struggle will be a public one and whether they go specific, general or (more likely) a combination of the two, the Grand Old Party is displaying a paucity of ideas and are rather likely to merely reheat some old ones hoping what they serve is still palatable. But whatever the Rs do, they will NOT stray from tea party mantras which necessitates they remain largely vague on policy while haranguing government and politicians for straying from true American values. Which means, the Rs have to campaign against themselves.

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
TX:

We already have a contract with America, it's call representation of the people. The Republicans have been honoring their representation by listening to the people. The Republicans want lower taxes, better economy, jobs, lower deficit and a lower debt. They haven't forced anyone to go against their religious beliefs by forcing Americans into any Republican plan. They haven't apologized for this country and on a daily basis they aren't attacking everything about America. Republicans want to pass on the America they grew up to their children and want the American people to do the same. That's a contract with our founding fathers and the people who have made the sacrifices to keep America the country we know today. America is not a horrible place to live because of our capitalist society. It's the reason people from all over the world fight to get here. President Obama made a contract with the far left to fundamentally change and transform this country. Let's not forget how and why we got to this point. President Obama has forgotten about the most important contract there is. The Constitution. In the eyes of President Obama, it's the old ways of doing things and that's not moving forward.

Tim Gorman (guest)
KS:

Ms. Fahey: I did *not* say Ryan didn't want to cut SS and Medicare. I *said* that Mr. Jost claiming that Ryan wanted to ELIMINATE SS and Medicare is typical liberal Dem politics of personal destruction. Until *you* can admit that SS and Medicare cuts *HAVE* to be part of a plan to put our federal budget on a sustainable path, you are condemning this country to bankruptcy. It is just that simple -- as Rep. Ryan has been trying to point out. As someone else pointed out, the liberal Dems waving the bloody shirt saying he wants to eliminate SS and Medicare is typical politics for the Dems -- the problem is that the people are beginning to figure out how the Dems are lying about the subject. They aren't going to get away it any more.

Paul Cass (guest)
CA:

Guest Tim Gorman is lying when he says that Republicans don't want to "get rid of" social programs like Medicare and Social Security. In fact, getting rid of those programs has often been a plank in the platforms of state Republican parties - it was in the platform of the Texas Republican Party when George Bush, the state's former governor, was in the White House. Rep. Paul Ryan, a member of the House Republican leadership, has made it quite clear that he wants to replace Medicare with a voucher system for everyone now under 55. When those people reach 65, each will be given an annual voucher to purchase private health insurance. If he can find all the coverage he needs for the amount of the voucher, great. If not, he can just die for lack of care. Republicans' vision for America's future is simply more of what we saw during the Bush years - government should stand aside and allow Wall Street banks, insurance companies and other big businesses to rip people off without any consequences.

Jonathan O'Reggio (guest)
MI:

Crist may need take his much ballyhooed embrace of Obama to another level if he wants to run as a Democrat. Bailing one his sinking vessel of a campaign, he is vainly hoping to sway independents. What makes his predicament even worse is that Rubio is one of the leading lights of the tea party. Crist will find the waters of the vast in between frigid and uninviting.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.